Kill ObamaCare Before it Makes Us All Sicker

The more ObamaCare is analyzed and as its 2700 pages of unintelligibility are
analyzed in detail, it becomes increasingly more apparent that its implementation will create enormous
harm to the U.S. economy and to many of the people it is supposed to benefit. The fallacies in the
arguments put forward for its passage in 2010 become evident as the maze of rules, regulations and
provisions are unraveled. It is becoming increasing clear that many of the promises made in favor
of the passage of ObamaCare were false, misleading, unsubstantiated or outright lies.
ObamaCare needs to be done away with as soon as possible – or, it may make many
Americans much sicker than they now are!

The question then arises: Are all the provisions in ObamaCare bad and do they
all need to be done away with? In spite of the propaganda spouted by the ObamaCare adherents, the answer is,
and always has been, of course not. Many of the elements of ObamaCare are reasonable and worthy of
implementation. The problem with ObamaCare is, and was since its conception, that it is too complicated,
too overstepping, too oversold, too expensive, and has too many simply bad provisions. There are too
many unintended (and probably intended) bad consequences. What is needed as a replacement for ObamaCare
is a series of simply understood and simply implemented health care laws or reforms, each one carefully
thought out and analyzed, that puts in place provisions that will truly benefit the American public at
an affordable cost. Yes, within reason, pre-existing conditions should not be a bar to health care coverage.
Yes, there should be a provision to cover catastrophic expenses. Yes, there should be an affordable
way for the poor to obtain health care services, etc. In spite of all the past vitriolic rhetoric,
no one really argues against features such as these. It’s time to consider what benefits America as
a whole, instead of what is a political argument on behalf of one political party. It’s
time to replace a cure that is worse than the perceived illness with one that effectively and
efficiently attacks the illness at a price that won’t bankrupt the patient.

A “Free Lunch” for Some

ObamaCare is the quintessential “one size fits all” socialist approach to
every aspect of government. Under ObamaCare, the people who:

have chosen not to work

prefer to sit home and watch TV

let welfare pay for their housing

have SSI give them pocket money

use EBT to pay for their groceries

have government programs pay for their electricity, cell phones, and free internet.

will definitely benefit.

With ObamaCare, these same people will have free, or nearly free, medical care.
And where will the money come from to pay for this “free” health care? It will come from the
hard-working taxpayer, the America middle class - you and me! The non-contributing ObamaCare
recipients feel “entitled” to free health care because they have been told that "healthcare is a
universal right."

These people want something they think they're getting for nothing. There
is no such thing as "free". Someone is paying for it and that someone is you, me, and every other
hard working American. If we don't foot the bill, ObamaCare will either make us pay a fine, or go
to jail.

The healthcare issue continues to heat up, as 1) full implementation nears,
and 2) the full import of what is contained in ObamaCare becomes better known and more fully understood.
One aspect of this monster healthcare program that is becoming clearer is the fact that costs will
increase significantly in a variety of ways to many individuals and businesses. Among those
increasing costs to individuals is the loss in real wages to many workers.

Stealing From Medicare to Pay for ObamaCare

One of the consequences that results from the passage
of ObamaCare is the effect that it produces on Medicare and on the seniors that depend upon Medicare.
“Paul Ryan said this about Medicare: And the biggest, coldest power play of all in ObamaCare came
at the expense of the elderly. You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care
takeover, even with the new law and new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in
Washington still didn't have enough money; they needed more. They needed hundreds of billions more.
So they just took it all away from Medicare, $716 billion funneled out of Medicare by President
Obama.” (Ref. 1

As described in Reference 1, “Obamacare cost about $1 trillion dollars
over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office {CBO}. . . . roughly half of that money
{comes} through new taxes, and the other half was “raised” from cuts in Medicare.”
Under the rules of rules of the CBO, Obamacare was allowed to call the
money taken from Medicare an “offset” to the new spending. “So, Obamacare looked deficit neutral
on paper, when in fact half of it was paid for with borrowed money.”
“The $500 {More likely $716} billion in cuts to Medicare do not amount to
cuts in benefits to patients, at least nominally. . . . Obamacare imposes efficiency requirements
on doctors and hospitals that, over time, {they will be virtually impossible to maintain. The}
government’s chief accountant for Medicare, estimates that 15 percent of all hospitals will fall
into the red because of these cuts. Thus, seniors will have the same benefits on paper – but, much
like those in the Medicaid program, they will find it difficult to find a doctor or hospital
willing to provide the service.”
In summary, to fund ObamaCare, President Obama and the Democrats “cut $500
{$716?} billion from the {Medicare} program; {they} used that money to cover the cost of ObamaCare;
the cuts are likely going to result in barriers to access for seniors.”
(Ref. 1)

Realistically, the real cost of ObamaCare is unknown. But, based upon the
cost growth history of nearly all major federal government programs, what is almost certain is that
current cost estimates for the unaffordable ObamaCare program are grossly underestimated. The cost
escalation process for ObamaCare has already begun.

The Lie that Health Care Costs would Not Be Increased

“Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too.
It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under
President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
“The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of
dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.
“{An} Employee benefits lawyer . . . calls it a ‘sleeper issue’ with
significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.
"’Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty,
{companies will} be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back
for it,’" (Ref. 2)

This cost increase comes in spite of the repeated claim by President
Obama that ObamaCare would not increase health care costs to individuals – a claim that drew
justified derision in 2009 and 2010 in view of the number of previously uninsured people that
would be added to the health care rolls at public expense.

“Employers are bracing for {these} big fees {to hit} next year . . .
The fee goes to create a $25 billion fund for insurance companies to offset the cost of covering
patients with high medical bills.
“- - - The requirement is unfair, they say, because it subsidizes
individually purchased plans that won't cover their workers. Companies including Boeing Co.
(BA) and a union health plan covering retirees of General Motors (GM) Ford Motor Co. (F) and
Chrysler, among other groups, have asked federal regulators to exclude or shield their
insurance recipients from the fee. (Ref. 3)

“Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next year as
the health care overhaul law expands coverage to millions of people.
“The nation's big health insurers say they expect premiums -- or
the cost for insurance coverage -- to rise from 20 to 100 percent for millions of people due
to changes that will occur when key provisions of the Affordable Care Act roll out in January 2014. - - - - - -
“- - - the biggest price hikes are expected to hit a group that
represents a relatively small slice of the insured population. That includes some of the
roughly 14 million people who buy their own insurance as opposed to being covered under
employer-sponsored plans, and to a lesser extent, some employees of smaller companies.
“The price increases are a downside of President Barack Obama's
health care law, which is expected to expand coverage to nearly 30 million uninsured people.
The massive law calls for a number of changes that could cause premiums for people who don't
have coverage through a big employer to rise next year -- at a time when health care costs
already are expected to grow by 5 percent or more:

• Changes to how insurers set premiums according to age and gender could cause some premiums to
rise as much as 50 percent, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, an industry
trade group that's funded by insurers.

• A new tax on premiums could raise prices as much as 2.3 percent in 2014 and more in subsequent years,
according to a study commissioned by AHIP. Policyholders with plans that end in 2014 probably have
already seen an impact from this.

• Requirements that insurance plans in many cases cover more health care or pay a greater share of a
patient's bill than they do now also could add to premiums, depending on the extent of a person's
current coverage, according AHIP.

- - -
“The impact of some cost hikes will be wide ranging. The new premium tax,
for instance, will affect individual insurance, some employer-sponsored coverage and Medicare Advantage
policies, which are privately-run versions of the government's Medicare program for the elderly and
disabled.” (Ref. 4)

In his 2013 State of the Union speech, president Obama continued to
advocate for his health care program with a series of falsehoods and misrepresentations. With
respect to his promise to reduce the cost of health care, we have the following: “The president
claimed his national health insurance is driving down medical costs. It’s actually the reverse.
[Emphasis mine] ABC News reported on the conclusion of the nonpartisan Health Care Institute:
‘Spending on health care rose 4.6 percent in 2011 – up $4,500 per person on average.’ The network
also noted a Kaiser Family Foundation report that said: ‘Health insurance premiums for individuals
and families also climbed year-over-year, up 3 percent ($186) on average for an individual and
4 percent ($672) on average for a family.’” (Ref. 5)

The Promise that ObamaCare Would Not Create Any New Tax Increases or Increase the
Deficit

ObamaCare was touted as a health care plan that would incur no new tax
increases. Such is clearly not the case. “According the U.S. Supreme Court, on 23 March of 2010,
the largest tax increase in the history of the United States was signed into law -
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), more commonly referred
to as ObamaCare.

In addition to the overall plan itself, he PPACA actually contains several
new taxes, including:

A 3.8% tax on some capital gains

A 10% tax on indoor tanning booths

A 0.9% tax on filers making more than $200,000 per year

A new tax levied on insurers who market luxury-level health care plans whose premiums cost
more than $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families

A 2.3% tax on sales of medical machinery

A tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers.

A new tax on insurers, scaled to their market share.

In addition to new taxes, the PPACA will also place limitations on some previous
tax breaks:

People will only be able to put $2,500 of pre-tax income into their flexible spending
accounts. (This isn't really a new tax, so much as a limit on an earlier tax break).

A reduced deduction for healthcare expenses.

“So yes, the PPACA will actually create a bunch of new taxes . . . Critics
argue that many of these taxes will trickle their way down onto the middle class through increased
premiums, higher prices for health care, or other charges.”
(Ref. 6)

So, the facts are clear that ObamaCare does indeed impose new taxes.
In the midst of a prolonged economic recession, do we need these increased financial strains on the
taxpayer and on American business?

Under President Obama's health care overhaul all taxpayers and many others
will have to pay for it. “The Affordable Care Act will extend health care coverage to some 30 million
uninsured consumers along with an expansion of Medicaid services. It also promises a slew of tax
credits for small business and middle-income families to help offset the costs of mandatory coverage.
“Much of the cost burden will be shouldered by the health care industry and
employers that provide workers with insurance. On an individual consumer level, however, it'll be the
wealthiest Americans who feel the sting of ObamaCare” . . . What follows are a list of the new costs
and on whom the payment burden will fall.
“ Medicare surtaxes: . . . As of Jan. 1, 2013, a 3.8 percent surtax will be
levied against surplus investments reported by the following groups: single filers reporting $200,000;
married couples reporting $250,000; and married couples filing separately reporting $125,000.
“In addition to the investment surtax, high-earning households will see their
Medicare tax spike by 0.9 percent on their earned income . . . The tax will apply to individuals earning
more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly who make more than $250,000. It goes into
effect Jan. 1, 2013.
“Consumer penalties: . . . the law would mandate coverage for all Americans on
pain of penalties. Those penalties . . . will kick off in 2014 . . . - - -
“If you're not covered by your employer, you'll have to pick from a list of
government-mandated health insurance packages . . . Some exceptions do apply, including low-income
families who can prove financial hardship.
“Flex spending account limits: In addition to capping Flexible spending
accounts at $2,500 in 2013, new rules limiting what you can buy with flex accounts will remain. . .
“Employee health coverage: Part of the Affordable Care Act's intent is to ensure
that businesses choose low-cost plans, which it hopes to accomplish by levying an excise tax on
plans that cost more than $10,200 per individual or $27,500 per family. That provision isn't in
effect until Jan. 1, 2018. - - -
“Pharmaceutical industry: Pharmaceutical manufacturers will see a spike in
annual government fees. . . .{ranging from $2.8 billion in 2012-2013 to $4.1 billion in 2018}”
“And insurers won't be off the hook either. {They will pay annual government
fees ranging from $8 billion in 2014 to $14.3 billion in 2018.}”
(Ref. 7)

Obama care has been touted as a program that will save health care
costs for Americans. That is as likely to happen as Mitt Romney being elected president of these
United States.

What about not increasing the debt? President Obama “promised that his
plan would not add ‘one dime’ to the deficit. {but} the Government Accountability Office announced
last week that it would more likely add . . . $6 trillion over 75 years.”
(Ref. 8)

What About the Promise that Everybody Could keep Their Existing Health Care
Coverage

“The Washington Times reported, ‘Obama’s Health care law will push 7 million
people out of their job-based insurance coverage – nearly twice the previous estimate, according to
the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.’”
(Ref. 5) Whatever happened to the president’s
promise that ObamaCare would not force anyone to lose the coverage he already had?

While president Obama promised that “if you like your health care plan,
you can keep your health care plan.” But, in fact, “Estimates for how many Americans will lose
their existing plans vary. The CBO says 5 million to 20 million. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
says about 30 percent of employers will push workers onto the public system.
“Even the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters union have started to freak out over the
gold-plated benefits many of their members will lose.”
(Ref. 8)

Unintended Consequences

What are some of the unintended (and perhaps intended) consequences of
ObamaCare? Summarized from Reference 9, here are some of these consequences:

ObamaCare increases taxes on individuals earning $200,000 or more and families earning over
$250,000. The income threshold is not indexed for inflation, so more and more middle-income
families will be hit by the tax hike as time goes on

Because ObamaCare adds a new tax to investment income, it will hit capital gains, dividends,
rents, and royalties, discouraging investment and harming economic growth.

ObamaCare puts new limitations on those with a Health Savings Account (HSA) or a Flexible
Savings Account (FSA)—such as over-the-counter medications—and increases the penalty for non-qualified
uses of HSAs. It also limits the amount taxpayers may deposit into an FSA.

Strangely, ObamaCare adds a new tax on those who need medical devices. Consequently, the medical
device industry will pay for this tax by reducing jobs and passing additional costs on to consumers.

ObamaCare penalizes marriage. ObamaCare creates new taxpayer-funded subsidies for the low and
middle classes to purchase health coverage, but the structure of the subsidies allows two individuals
to claim more in subsidies alone than if married. This discriminates against married couples and
discourages marriage at almost all age and income levels.

It’s charged that ObamaCare violates religious liberty. The Department of Health and Human
Services included the full range of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, among the
women-specific preventive services that ObamaCare requires insurers to include with no cost-sharing.
This mandate violates Americans’ conscience rights and religious liberty. Its narrow exemption for
religious employers will force many who find these products morally objectionable—including
religious charities, hospitals, and schools—to pay for them.

ObamaCare puts Medicare decisions in the hands of an unelected board. These unaccountable
government appointees will be able to restrict seniors’ access to providers, treatments, and services.

ObamaCare adds a premium tax on health insurers that offer full coverage beginning in 2014.
Combined with the other provisions in ObamaCare, this tax will have a huge impact on the cost
of premiums.

ObamaCare creates a new unsustainable entitlement program on top of Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid, called the CLASS program. It is actuarially unsound, unworkable,
and unsustainable. As a result, the Administration has already put its implementation “on hold.”

ObamaCare puts America further on the road to socialized medicine and socialism in general.
With ObamaCare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and creation of taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchase
health coverage, more than half of all Americans will be dependent on a government health care
program (Medicare, Medicaid, or the government exchanges) by the end of this decade.

Another consequence of ObamaCare is the shifting of many workers in the food service
industry from full-time employment to part-time employment. Part-time workers are exempt from the insurance
mandate of ObamaCare. Darden Restaurants, the parent of Olive Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse, Red Lobster and
other chains “announced last month {October 2012} that it would begin shifting full-time workers to
part-time status to save money, cut health costs and circumvent Obamacare’s coverage mandate scheduled
for full time implementation in 2014.” Darden and some 2,000 other companies, unions and other health
insurance providers, had previously received a waiver from the Obama administration. “A survey of
members of the Chain Restaurant Association . . . reported that a whopping 77 percent of ‘quick
serve’ restaurant operators said they were considering reducing employee hours to change their
status from full-time to part-time.” (Ref. 10)

The negative impact of ObamaCare is becoming more and more apparent. “Walmart,
the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who
work fewer than 30 hours a week . . .
“Under the policy, slated to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the
right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below
30 hours -- something that happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers. - - -
“Labor and health care experts portrayed Walmart’s decision to exclude workers
from its medical plans as an attempt to limit costs while taking advantage of the national health
care reform known as Obamacare. Among the key features of Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid,
the taxpayer-financed health insurance program for poor people. Many of the Walmart workers who
might be dropped from the company’s health care plans earn so little that they would qualify for
the expanded Medicaid program, these experts said. - - -
“’Walmart is effectively shifting the costs of paying for its employees onto
the federal government with this new plan, which is one of the problems with the way the law is structured,’
“’Walmart likely thought it didn’t need to offer this part-time coverage
anymore with Obamacare, . . . This is another example of a tremendous government subsidy to Walmart
via its workers.’
“In pursuing lower health care costs, Walmart is following the same course as
many other large employers. . . .other companies are also crafting policies that will exclude some
part-time workers from medical coverage.
“- - - the growing corporate interest in separating out part-time workers {is}
a reaction to another aspect of Obamacare -- the new rules that require companies with at least 50
full-time workers to offer health coverage to all employees who work 30 or more hours a week or pay
penalties.
“Several employers in recent months, including Darden Restaurants, owner of
Olive Garden and Red Lobster, and a New York-area Applebee’s franchise owner, said they are considering
cutting employee hours to push more workers below the 30-hour threshold.”
(Ref. 11)

ObamaCare establishes still one more federal bureaucracy and “relies on
states to expand insurance coverage through Medicaid and to set up bureaucracies, called exchanges,
through which new health insurance subsidies will be distributed.”
(Ref. 12) Several state governors are refusing to
implement this section of the new health care law. To Explain his refusal, The governor of
Louisiana wrote the following letter to the Department of Health & Human Services:

“’The full extent of damage the [Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act]
causes to small businesses, the nation’s economy, and the American health care system will only
be revealed with time. The State of Louisiana has no interest in being a party to this failure.’ - - -
“At least 21 states have said they definitely or probably will not set up
state exchanges.” (Ref. 11)

Physician Shortages

America faces a growing shortage of primary care physicians. Will ObamaCare
relieve or worsen the problem? The odds are that ObamaCare will simple make the problem more severe.

“’It’s hard for patients to find a primary care doctor right now. In 10 years,
it will be impossible.’
Experts predict that the U.S. will be short 45, 000 primary care
physicians by the year 2020 – throwing an already overstretched medical system into crisis.
(Currently, the average U. S. physician is responsible for 2,300 patients – more than twice
the recommended number.)” (Ref. 13)

The causes of the problem? – Many general practitioners are nearing retirement
and there aren’t enough new doctors to take their place. Will ObamaCare help to avert the crisis?
Not likely! Obamacare threatens to limit or reduce the pay of physicians creating a financial
disincentive, considering the horrendous cost to educate a doctor and establish a medical practice;
ObamaCare will increase, not reduce the physician workload by adding regulatory oversight, more
reporting and red tape.

Lessons to be learned From ObamaCare’s Predecessor

The program known on ObamaCare draws many of its provisions from the pioneering
Massachusetts healthcare law, known as RomneyCare. One of the selling points for ObamaCare was the claim
that health care costs to the individual would not increase significantly. This claim is being disputed
as new evidence becomes available. As should be obvious, there are no free rides when it comes to
increasing health care coverage – someone must pay the bill.

ObamaCare is supposed to rein in the increasing cost of health care. The model
for ObamaCare is RomneyCare which went into effect in Massachusetts in 2006. Let’s look at how RomneyCare
has reduced the costs of health care. “In 2013, health care {in Massachusetts} will consume 41 percent –
roughly $14.3 Billion – of the state budget, compared to {only} 23 percent in 2000.”
(Ref. 14) In other words, RomneyCare has
just not failed to reduce costs, it has instead resulted in an enormous cost increase! Can any sane
person imagine that the same result will not happen under Obmacare?

Here in Massachusetts, we already have a “universal health care law - RomneyCare.
Romenycare is not inexpensive, but most citizens of Massachusetts who want coverage are covered by it.
An unfortunate aspect of RomneyCare is that even those who do not want its coverage are essentially
forced to accept its coverage to avoid paying penalties. ObamaCare would replace RomneyCare here in
Massachusetts with a higher cost to the citizens of the state. Here in Massachusetts health care
costs are higher than in the most of the U.S. and so are health care premiums. Under ObamaCare,
Massachusetts would be penalized because of these facts, resulting in increased costs to the people
of Massachusetts and to all businesses in the state.

RomneyCare in Massachusetts portends what will happen to the cost of
healthcare nationally, once ObamaCare fully kicks in.

Impact of ObamaCare on Massachusetts

Under the provisions of ObamaCare, a study by the Pioneer Institute shows
that: “Beginning in 2018 insurers and businesses that self-insure will be required to pay an excise
tax for higher-value health plans - - -
“a majority of individuals and families on private insurance in Massachusetts
will be hit by the Cadillac tax by 2018 – and more if health care costs continue to grow faster than
inflation.
“For the small-business owner with at least three full-time workers it
will mean $86,905 in additional taxes per employee over 10 years. For a police officer,
an additional $53,907. An additional $20,807 for a middle school teacher over the same decade.”
Instead of a tax on “super, gold-plated Cadillac plans”, we are getting a “Ford Tax”. The impact
on employers may well be to weaken benefits or to drop their insurance coverage altogether and let
the employees come under government provided coverage. As an unintended consequence of the “Cadillac
plan” tax, Massachusetts residents “will be forced to dig deeper to ensure coverage for the rest of
the country.” Also, if their employers or insurers drop coverage, many may be forced to give up
their existing health care coverage altogether for one that they may not want. The promises that
“you won’t have to give up your current health care coverage” or “your health care coverage costs
won’t increase” under ObamaCare appear not to apply in Massachusetts. To how many other states and
citizens of the U.S. this is true is not apparent at this time.
(Ref. 16 for items enclosed in quotation marks)

The medical device industry in Massachusetts is taking a hit from ObamaCare,
as are all individuals who use medical devices – and just who doesn’t? “The Internal Revenue Service
released its final rules last week {in December 2012} on that ObamaCare medical device tax that is
expected to hit Massachusetts like a freight train. And, yes, it’s every bit as bad as expected. - - -
“- - - while state lawmakers are attempting to control health care costs
in this state, the new federal tax [Emphasis mine] will increase the costs of
everything from tongue depressors to pacemakers.”
(Ref. 17) Note that this is indeed a
new federal tax in spite of the promises that that there would be no new taxes or that health
care costs would not be increased.

“A new tax on medical device makers, including Boston Scientific, has
taken effect . . . The 2.3 percent excise tax is one of several taxes that are designed
to help pay for president Obama’s federal health care overhaul. [Emphasis mine] The
industry warned the tax could cost about 43,000 jobs nationwide.”
(Ref. 18)

What the Immediate Future Holds

With the defeat of Republican Mitt Romney and the failure of the Republicans to
gain control of the Senate in the 2012 elections, any serious hope for rescinding ObamaCare, or, at
the least, scaling back its most onerous provisions, are gone. We are all likely to get much
sicker financially under ObamaCare and other negative consequences are also likely to result.

Every time the issue of ObamaCare resurfaces, we find out some new facts.
After all, it was Nancy Pellosi who told us that we needed to pass the health care legislation so we
could find out want what it actually was. Well, the health care legislation is now law and nearly
every day we continue to find out more and more about what is buried in the massive and still
largely incomprehensible program – and much of what we are learning is not good.

As ObamaCare becomes fully implemented, some of its effects that we can
expect to see are as follows:

“Companies with more than 50 employees are searching for ways to avoid the
penalties for not complying with the law’s employer mandate.”
(Ref. 12) Some alternatives under consideration
are: reduce the number of employees to less than 50 and/or reduce the number of work-hours for
some employees to change their status from full-time to part-time – not conducive to the
affected employees and their families maintaining a decent standard of living.

“The individual mandate will take effect in 2014, and the CBO
expects at least 6 million people to pay the initial $95 fine rather than purchase expensive,
government prescribed health insurance.” (Ref. 12)

Overall, some other effects that the future may hold under ObamaCare are:

“New federal regulations that look to combine the individual and small
health insurance markets nationally could adversely affect small businesses - - -
“The Affordable Care Act regulations may lower premiums for individuals,
but raise them for small groups – primarily small businesses - - -
“It will make small businesses second-class citizens by raising premiums - - -
“Wellness cooperatives were created {in Massachusetts} last year as part of
a state initiative to improve healthy living and lower overall health care costs.
“Under the new {federal} regulations, such cooperatives stand to lose their
lower premium incentives, thus undercutting the goal of promoting wellness - - -
“’Federal regulations essentially focus on how to pay for illness,
rather than how to promote wellness.’”
(Ref. 19)

As is all too typical of many
federal initiatives, the focus here is on regulation and paperwork – a government job-creating
and maintaining consequence – rather than on addressing the real core problem! The result – more
compliance and reporting burdens and expenses for private business; more government employees
beholden to the liberal-Democratic establishment; increased cost of government to be borne by
the taxpayer and business; more deficit spending, more federal debt and still more interest
costs to pay off the ever-increasing federal debt.

Postscript

"It isn't every day that more than half the Democrats in the Senate
vote to repeal part of President Barack Obama's health care law. But that's what happened
Thursday night when the Senate voted 79-20 to repeal a 2.3 percent sales tax on medical
devices such as catheters, pacemakers and MRI machines, which was intended to help to
finance coverage for the uninsured that starts next year. - - -
"{Unfortunately} the vote was nonbinding, amounting to budget guidance. . . .
"Nonetheless, 33 of the chamber's 53 Democrats joined all 45 Republicans
in voting for the repeal {of the} amendment. . . . - - -
"The {medical device} companies started paying the tax Jan. 1,
and they say if it stays on the books that will lead to lay-offs and put a damper on
investment. Outside economists expect the industry will be able to pass on most of
the tax increase to customers." (Ref. 20)

Maybe the message is beginning to sink in - for Democrats as well as Republicans.
ObamaCare, as it currently exists, is not good good for the health of America.

The 10 Terrible Provisions of ObamaCare You May Not Have Heard Of, Alyene Senger,
The Foundry; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/the-10-terrible-provisions-of-ObamaCare-you-may-not-have-heard-of/,
7 March 2012.